More studio news

[guitarfool2002]

Just thinking out loud here...About the most recent projects, there were a few points made about Brian wanting to re-do or remake "old" material, I assume that was along the lines of the Do It Again remake, or revisit some old songs he (or they) had on the shelf from previous years, where Mike in contrast wanted something "new" instead.

To make a joke on another thread, I actually searched for the "Problem Child" single looking for cover art, and decided to take a fresh listen too. I won't go into details, but I think most could guess my opinion of that track.

Which got me thinking out loud here: When left to - let's put this delicately - the "Mike" direction of the band's releases over the past, say, 30 years or so when Brian was not as actively involved, was there anything "new" released which was noteworthy or even somewhat respectful of the legacy of this incredible band? It's like shooting fish in a barrel, in a way, but "Problem Child", "Wipe Out (feat. The Fat Boys)", the NASCAR album, the country album (which had some decent cuts but overall didn't do much), Summer In Paradise, Still Cruisin, the Baywatch tie-ins,...etc. Apart from Kokomo which was a hit and is a memorable single in retrospect, what kind of "new" material added to the incredible legacy of this band? What was successful where fans would want to hear more of it at live shows, for example? Apart from the band doing "Summer In Paradise" on stage and of course Kokomo, the answer is little or none.

I'm not talking relativity here, where we now have to list the missteps and duds from Brian's past 30 years (and there are more than a few of note) to even things out, but if the prospect of doing a new BB's album involves the same sort of misguided trend-driven yet late-to-the-party approach to making a "current" record like "Problem Child" or "Wipe Out", wouldn't it have been viable to just do remakes of classics or older shelved songs rather than try to write something in an attempt to appeal to a current trend?

I think avoiding the effort to deliberately try to release a "current" or trendy sounding song or album was what put TTGMTR above the rest, apart from having that many more band members involved. Is there any trace of them trying to be modern or trendy on the latest album? Are there any dubstep-friendly bass-drops, are there beats taken from hip-hop or modern R&B or other nods to current trends or styles? Of course not, in fact the best of the songs on the album are unique, and quirky enough to appeal to the people who enjoy their music.

On the other hand, that current interview with Mike had him suggesting the need for a "hit single" or whatever it was he said, and *right there* is what got them into trouble since the 80's as that mentality prevailed.

Would you recommend any of those attempts at a "hit single" since the 80's like "Problem Child" to someone else who hasn't heard them? So when the meetings and discussions and debates over what the new BB's project would be were in full force, could something like revisiting the older material have looked more attractive than trying to do another attempt to get on modern radio, which is a rather pointless effort to begin with?

[drbeachboy]

I am interested in why you chose Problem Child as the example? It may have the "current" sound that you speak of, but it was not recorded specifically to be released as a hit, but rather as a theme song for a movie.

[guitarfool2002]

I am interested in why you chose Problem Child as the example? It may have the "current" sound that you speak of, but it was not recorded specifically to be released as a hit, but rather as a theme song for a movie.

I listed more than one example, in the third paragraph of the post. I thought I covered all the album/single bases without listing things we as fans already know. "Problem Child" just happened to be the one I listened to fresh just last night as I was posting a joke in another thread. 

And, it is wrong to think that a theme song for a movie is not designed, created, and released to tie-in to promoting that movie by also becoming a "hit" on radio, or at that time MTV, etc. The video for Problem Child features the kid from the movie pranking the Beach Boys throughout the video, along with clips from the film itself. Oh, and there is also the obligatory shots of Mike pretending to blow a sax solo, as he seems to have done in quite a few videos from this era.

Tell me the producers of a film are going to demand anything less from a band contracted to record theme song than the hope for something like Rocky or Ghostbusters or Live And Let Die or any of the other big-hit theme songs that were written to both promote the movie and become a hit so the public turns on the radio, hears "Who ya gonna call...GHOSTBUSTERS!", or "Everybody's talkin' at me..." and thinks about seeing the film?

Problem Child just happened to be the one most fresh in my mind today. I'm having a hard time getting the background vocals saying "na-na, naa naa-naaaa" like a spoiled little brat would do out of my mind.    Great arrangement, that one...

[SMiLE Brian]

Great posts gf, really nails the mindset of the ML-era BBs. I listened to "make it big" the other day and was struck by how goofy the BBs sounded trying to be like "Electric Light Orchestra.

[Nicko1234]

Just thinking out loud here...About the most recent projects, there were a few points made about Brian wanting to re-do or remake "old" material, I assume that was along the lines of the Do It Again remake, or revisit some old songs he (or they) had on the shelf from previous years, where Mike in contrast wanted something "new" instead.

To make a joke on another thread, I actually searched for the "Problem Child" single looking for cover art, and decided to take a fresh listen too. I won't go into details, but I think most could guess my opinion of that track.

Which got me thinking out loud here: When left to - let's put this delicately - the "Mike" direction of the band's releases over the past, say, 30 years or so when Brian was not as actively involved, was there anything "new" released which was noteworthy or even somewhat respectful of the legacy of this incredible band? It's like shooting fish in a barrel, in a way, but "Problem Child", "Wipe Out (feat. The Fat Boys)", the NASCAR album, the country album (which had some decent cuts but overall didn't do much), Summer In Paradise, Still Cruisin, the Baywatch tie-ins,...etc. Apart from Kokomo which was a hit and is a memorable single in retrospect, what kind of "new" material added to the incredible legacy of this band? What was successful where fans would want to hear more of it at live shows, for example? Apart from the band doing "Summer In Paradise" on stage and of course Kokomo, the answer is little or none.

I'm not talking relativity here, where we now have to list the missteps and duds from Brian's past 30 years (and there are more than a few of note) to even things out, but if the prospect of doing a new BB's album involves the same sort of misguided trend-driven yet late-to-the-party approach to making a "current" record like "Problem Child" or "Wipe Out", wouldn't it have been viable to just do remakes of classics or older shelved songs rather than try to write something in an attempt to appeal to a current trend?

I think avoiding the effort to deliberately try to release a "current" or trendy sounding song or album was what put TTGMTR above the rest, apart from having that many more band members involved. Is there any trace of them trying to be modern or trendy on the latest album? Are there any dubstep-friendly bass-drops, are there beats taken from hip-hop or modern R&B or other nods to current trends or styles? Of course not, in fact the best of the songs on the album are unique, and quirky enough to appeal to the people who enjoy their music.

On the other hand, that current interview with Mike had him suggesting the need for a "hit single" or whatever it was he said, and *right there* is what got them into trouble since the 80's as that mentality prevailed.

Would you recommend any of those attempts at a "hit single" since the 80's like "Problem Child" to someone else who hasn't heard them? So when the meetings and discussions and debates over what the new BB's project would be were in full force, could something like revisiting the older material have looked more attractive than trying to do another attempt to get on modern radio, which is a rather pointless effort to begin with?

I think you know the answer to the questions that you're asking but the 30 years that you mention is inaccurate. From 1998 onwards they were only a touring group (NASCAR isn't credited to The Beach Boys) so what we are really talking about is 1986 to 1996.

I don't think it was the need for a hit single that got them into trouble at this time. It was that they only had original members left and they weren't capable of making a decent group album in the style of Holland as Carl himself admitted. Mike therefore did what he could to keep them in the public eye and they got lucky with Wipeout and Kokomo.

[guitarfool2002]

I think you know the answer to the questions that you're asking but the 30 years that you mention is inaccurate. From 1998 onwards they were only a touring group (NASCAR isn't credited to The Beach Boys) so what we are really talking about is 1986 to 1996.

I don't think it was the need for a hit single that got them into trouble at this time. It was that they only had original members left and they weren't capable of making a decent group album in the style of Holland as Carl himself admitted. Mike therefore did what he could to keep them in the public eye and they got lucky with Wipeout and Kokomo.

Re: The line in bold... 

The impression I got from Mike in that most recent interview posted here is that the lack of and the need for (i.e. the 'importance' of) a hit single seems to be where Mike himself is directing some of his Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking toward the TTGMTR album, at least in that interview.

It's a difference of opinion, I suppose, but the way this era of the band seemed to be chasing something which would get played on the radio after the success of the Kokomo-Cocktail film promotional tie-in (actually going back to the BB '85 album), and failing miserably at the majority of attempts to the point of embarrassment seems to be the exact same thing Mike appears to be saying they didn't do and perhaps should have done for the TTGMTR album last year, maybe even looking ahead in 2013 to adapting that same strategy since his opinion seems to be TTGMTR needed the all-important hit single. Or some new soundtrack song and tie-in, whatever the case.

It just doesn't seem to add up, at least to me.

[The Shift]

Hav to admit Gf that Rock and Roll To The Rescue is one tune from that era that I do like. Otherwise, your post is right on the money!

[guitarfool2002]

I want to add something else to clarify a bit more. This is the part of Mike's recent interview that raised an eyebrow:

Q: Well, it’s recent history.

A: Well, it debuted at No. 3. That’s not bad. But it didn’t stay up there very long. To have sustained success, like we’ve been known to do, you need a single that will chart and stay in the Top 20 or the Top 10 for three months. And that didn’t happen with this album.

Q: Do you have a favorite era of the Beach Boys?

A: Well, yeah. I mean, “California Girls,” I wrote the words in the hallway while Brian was working on the track with the Wrecking Crew, this really great group of musicians in LA. I wrote the words to “Good Vibrations” on the way to the studio when he finally decided what was going to be the track for the single. So, yeah, I had a really good time back in the ’60s co-writing a bunch of great songs.

This was said after he says he wasn't consulted much on the TTGMTR album.

My issue is: What the heck is he referring to, exactly? Doesn't it seem to be a classic case of a "straw man" argument, referring to that elusive single that will "stay on the charts" for months?

Apart from Kokomo, which did catch the public's attention and which was also plugged into the promotional machine behind a major film featuring Tom Cruise, what exactly is Mike either referring to or comparing TTGMTR to in light of the band's track record on the charts from these past 30 years or more? In other words, what kind of success is he referring to after 1966 that would make a record which debuts at #3 on the charts pale in comparison to his mindset which described the album charting *at all*, never mind at #3, as "not bad"?

It's just my opinion, of course, but saying that he wasn't consulted much on the album, then saying a Beach Boys debut at #3 in the musical climate of 2012 is "not bad" seems somewhat petty, if not bordering on sour grapes in a way. And again, what or where is he comparing that album to and with, and why is he doing this, considering the track record of Beach Boys albums and singles since the 1980's when we can all but pinpoint where and why certain career decisions were being made?

At least the interviewer didn't bring up the Smile box set. 

[Mike's Beard]

I get the feeling OSD is just play acting,

You are aware that OSD pulls this same garbage on other music boards too and that it's not just soley for the 'entertainment' of posters here?

[Letsgoawayforawhile]

God bless OSD and AGD.
Yin and Yang.

[Nicko1234]

In other words, what kind of success is he referring to after 1966 that would make a record which debuts at #3 on the charts pale in comparison to his mindset which described the album charting *at all*, never mind at #3, as "not bad"?

I think that depends on the way that it was said. A person could say, 'number 3 is not bad' meaning that it is impressive. Or they could say, 'number 3 is not bad' meaning that it is average...

While I think we would all agree that chart position was mightily impressive, I do understand why Mike could have been disappointed that it dropped out of the charts quickly. TWGMTR spent 8 weeks on the chart which was the same as Stars and Stripes but obviously a much, much shorter time than 15 Big Ones, Still Cruisin' or even BB85 stayed there. Basically they sold stacks on QVC but had nothing to keep that going.

Part of this is probably down to how the music business has changed but Mike certainly isn't the only older performer to be slightly out of touch with that.

[DonnyL]

Thanks Craig for getting this conversation really going !

First off, I think you're right, and you brought up a lot of totally valid points. And the band was super lost during ... really the '90s I think was the worst.

I think if the group's management had taken the 'God Made the Radio' approach in the '80s, we probably would have seen an album go something like this:

1 Rock N Roll to the Rescue
2 Still Cruisin
3 Somewhere Near Japan
4 Island Girl
5 In My Car
6 Kokomo
7 There's So Many

8 Love and Mercy
9 Make It Big
10 Melt Away
11 Chasin the Sky
12 The Spirit of Rock and Roll
13 California Dreamin'

... and it probably would have been fairly successful (maybe more so than 'Still Cruisin'), with a bit more critical acclaim.

I view the '80s-'00s as really a series of missed opportunities for the group.

I think the potential was always there for something great. The mid-'90s Paley sessions would have been a classic Beach Boys album if properly completed. That, along with Adult Child and Dennis' early '70s stuff, is the greatest missing link in the group's output.

I think Carl was right -- they were not capable of really making another 'Holland' ... but they were capable of making another 'Love You' ... I just don't think anyone except Brian wanted to. I think he still wants to make another 'Love You', but no one is behind him.

But the biggest problem of the era was 'Kokomo' -- since it became a hit, Mike and the group were basically chasing that sound in an attempt to duplicat it's success. Seriously, even by 1992, when the entire landscape of pop music had changed, they released an entire album of 'Kokomo' retreads! And then Stars & Stripes is really just the biggest head-scratcher in a career of head-scratchers. I mean, we could have had a great record somewhere in there!

It's sort of like there is this idea that Beach Boys are have the 'summer fun' side, and the 'serious'/orchestral side or something ... but in reality, I think the real BW-lead Beach Boys would come out something like Love You/Friends/Wild Honey. But I don't think anyone in the band's system, except for maybe Brian and Al Jardine, want to go in this direction.

[Cam Mott]

Well he did say "like we've been known to do" which is a reference to the past music market and not the present. You could see it as confidence [maybe over-confidence] in his group. It seems clear to me he would like to collaborate with Brian like they used to in 1965 for instance, the date he keeps mentioning. Is it bad to want some/more/any input into your group's output?

Also, Cocktail had a buttload of songs that didn't do anything in the charts as I remember. Isn't it possible Komomo made it mostly on its own? I'm sure being in a movie didn't hurt.

[Nicko1234]

Thanks Craig for getting this conversation really going !

First off, I think you're right, and you brought up a lot of totally valid points. And the band was super lost during ... really the '90s I think was the worst.

I think if the group's management had taken the 'God Made the Radio' approach in the '80s, we probably would have seen an album go something like this:

1 Rock N Roll to the Rescue
2 Still Cruisin
3 Somewhere Near Japan
4 Island Girl
5 In My Car
6 Kokomo
7 There's So Many

8 Love and Mercy
9 Make It Big
10 Melt Away
11 Chasin the Sky
12 The Spirit of Rock and Roll
13 California Dreamin'

... and it probably would have been fairly successful (maybe more so than 'Still Cruisin'), with a bit more critical acclaim.

I view the '80s-'00s as really a series of missed opportunities for the group.

I think the potential was always there for something great. The mid-'90s Paley sessions would have been a classic Beach Boys album if properly completed. That, along with Adult Child and Dennis' early '70s stuff, is the greatest missing link in the group's output.

I think Carl was right -- they were not capable of really making another 'Holland' ... but they were capable of making another 'Love You' ... I just don't think anyone except Brian wanted to. I think he still wants to make another 'Love You', but no one is behind him.

But the biggest problem of the era was 'Kokomo' -- since it became a hit, Mike and the group were basically chasing that sound in an attempt to duplicat it's success. Seriously, even by 1992, when the entire landscape of pop music had changed, they released an entire album of 'Kokomo' retreads! And then Stars & Stripes is really just the biggest head-scratcher in a career of head-scratchers. I mean, we could have had a great record somewhere in there!

It's sort of like there is this idea that Beach Boys are have the 'summer fun' side, and the 'serious'/orchestral side or something ... but in reality, I think the real BW-lead Beach Boys would come out something like Love You/Friends/Wild Honey. But I don't think anyone in the band's system, except for maybe Brian and Al Jardine, want to go in this direction.

Well, I don't think there is any way that the Brian songs were going to appear on Still Cruisin' like that. I wish they had included California Dreamin', Rock and Roll to the Rescue and Chasin' the Sky instead of the oldies but as the album has sold more than a million copies I can't say it would have improved sales.

Obviously Brian couldn't have worked with them until Landy was gone and the Paley stuff doesn't sound that much like Love You to me. If Carl hadn't walked out of the sessions then it probably would have been pretty commercial stuff.

And last year Brian made the album that he wanted to make (which clearly wasn't Love You). He suggested song titles like Spring Vacation and Beaches in Mind and obviously wanted that kind of stuff on there and he was presumably happy to work with Joe Thomas. Brian likes hit records and if the group had done something like Love You then it wouldn't have sold half as well.

[Steve Mayo]

one has to be aware or remember (depending on one's age now) that back when that lp came out there were record club ads in tv guide and in about about every music magazine. one could get up to 12 free lps/cassettes/tapes of many lp's when one joined these clubs. many units of lp's were moved by people getting freebies when they joined. i did it myself. many of those units of made in usa and still crusin' were from these record clubs i would wager. so it's not like stores "sold" most of the units in the classic sense. it took a few years for both to reach platinum status.

[guitarfool2002]

Well he did say "like we've been known to do" which is a reference to the past music market and not the present. You could see it as confidence [maybe over-confidence] in his group. It seems clear to me he would like to collaborate with Brian like they used to in 1965 for instance, the date he keeps mentioning. Is it bad to want some/more/any input into your group's output?

Also, Cocktail had a buttload of songs that didn't do anything in the charts as I remember. Isn't it possible Komomo made it mostly on its own? I'm sure being in a movie didn't hurt.

There are two concepts which I see as being pushed aside, at least judging from Mike's own words.

1. Being a "team player". If you're an athlete on a team of any kind, and you have confidence in that team (or group), does it matter how much you as a part of that team were or were not directly involved when looking back on either a successful season, a playoff victory, a championship, or even a single win by that team? A player on a winning team who downplays the overall win while bemoaning his or her lesser involvement in that team's victory would be rightfully called out as selfish if not petty, and definitely many observers would conclude that the player was perhaps not a "team player" as much as someone driven by either a massive ego, sour grapes, or some other force other than being part of a winning team.

So if Brian comes back into the fold, the remaining original members are involved, and the resulting new Beach Boys album makes the charts at all, let alone cracking the top 5 in the digital download world of 2012, what difference should it make if Mike's involvement was less than he would have liked if the driving force was truly that confidence in "his group"?

2. The concept of celebrating a victory. 2012 was a winning year for the Beach Boys, why not celebrate a successful tour, celebrate a top-5 charting new album, celebrate the awards and the various media attention...it's something millions of musicians successful and unknown strive for and dream about. I fail to see the need to diminish it in any way, or the need to call a top 5 album released by a band of men in their 60's competing with artists on the charts in their teens and 20's and 30's in the year 2012 "not bad".

Again, if Mike sees TTGMTR as a lesser accomplishment, or if he felt he should have been consulted more than he was, I can't see any upside to making that point in public. Again, when the band was more or less going in the direction he was not only in favor of but also directly involved in charting out, where were those successes he seems to be comparing TTGMTR with?

And contrast the wording of the interview with what he was saying while making the interview rounds while promoting both the album and the 50th tour last year, not to mention the Smile box promotions. It seems to have gone from how great it is to get Brian back, to be in the studio, to celebrate the music and get the family back together for these things, to now saying he wasn't that involved and even worse, downplaying the album's performance, suggesting they needed a single on the charts for several months. What?

I just found that recent interview and those sentiments a little disheartening overall.

[Nicko1234]

1. Being a "team player". If you're an athlete on a team of any kind, and you have confidence in that team (or group), does it matter how much you as a part of that team were or were not directly involved when looking back on either a successful season, a playoff victory, a championship, or even a single win by that team? A player on a winning team who downplays the overall win while bemoaning his or her lesser involvement in that team's victory would be rightfully called out as selfish if not petty, and definitely many observers would conclude that the player was perhaps not a "team player" as much as someone driven by either a massive ego, sour grapes, or some other force other than being part of a winning team.

So if Brian comes back into the fold, the remaining original members are involved, and the resulting new Beach Boys album makes the charts at all, let alone cracking the top 5 in the digital download world of 2012, what difference should it make if Mike's involvement was less than he would have liked if the driving force was truly that confidence in "his group"?

I'm guessing you haven't watched much sport recently. 

The concept of 'team players' may exist at school but in professional sport players will put in transfer requests at the drop of a hat and even refuse to sit on the bench if they are not in the starting line-up.

Even if they do keep their mouths shut at the time that doesn't mean that they should feel they can never criticize or question what's gone before which is what you seem to be saying. If that were the case then sportspeople's autobiographies would be even duller than they actually are.

I think it's a little naive to suppose that any of the group members were only in it for 'the team' last year anyway. The name of The Beach Boys doesn't mean that much to any of them which is why they have urinated on it so many times in the past.

[guitarfool2002]

1. Being a "team player". If you're an athlete on a team of any kind, and you have confidence in that team (or group), does it matter how much you as a part of that team were or were not directly involved when looking back on either a successful season, a playoff victory, a championship, or even a single win by that team? A player on a winning team who downplays the overall win while bemoaning his or her lesser involvement in that team's victory would be rightfully called out as selfish if not petty, and definitely many observers would conclude that the player was perhaps not a "team player" as much as someone driven by either a massive ego, sour grapes, or some other force other than being part of a winning team.

So if Brian comes back into the fold, the remaining original members are involved, and the resulting new Beach Boys album makes the charts at all, let alone cracking the top 5 in the digital download world of 2012, what difference should it make if Mike's involvement was less than he would have liked if the driving force was truly that confidence in "his group"?

I'm guessing you haven't watched much sport recently. 

The concept of 'team players' may exist at school but in professional sport players will put in transfer requests at the drop of a hat and even refuse to sit on the bench if they are not in the starting line-up.

Even if they do keep their mouths shut at the time that doesn't mean that they should feel they can never criticize or question what's gone before which is what you seem to be saying. If that were the case then sportspeople's autobiographies would be even duller than they actually are.

I think it's a little naive to suppose that any of the group members were only in it for 'the team' last year anyway. The name of The Beach Boys doesn't mean that much to any of them which is why they have urinated on it so many times in the past.

The last paragraph would then disprove the notion that confidence or over-confidence in his group was behind Mike's comments in that interview.

[Rocker]

On the other hand, that current interview with Mike had him suggesting the need for a "hit single" or whatever it was he said, and *right there* is what got them into trouble since the 80's as that mentality prevailed.

I think the question is: How do you wanna get a hit when you don't promote your single? I'm talking about "Isn't it time" of course. As mentioned before, imo the song has a lot of hit potential but you can't expect that people buy it when there's no one to push it.


Oh and btw, I really have a soft spot in my heart for the 80s tries at getting a hit.

[Steve Mayo]

I am interested in why you chose Problem Child as the example? It may have the "current" sound that you speak of, but it was not recorded specifically to be released as a hit, but rather as a theme song for a movie.

yes it was a theme song from a movie of the same name but the group did in fact want it out and hoped for a hit single from it. bruce in 1990 ( 7/23/90) was doing interviews about their "new" single. on that day bruce was interviewed on a local fm station here (wrvc). was at the studio during the call and have that interview recorded. but they did hope for a hit from that song.

[Nicko1234]

The last paragraph would then disprove the notion that confidence or over-confidence in his group was behind Mike's comments in that interview.

No, I'm not saying that Mike underrates The Beach Boys. The idea of Mike lacking in confidence is hilarious though.

I'm saying that the name of the group doesn't mean that much to them when you compare it to how some of the hardcore fans feel. I think the reunion happened because they thought it would benefit them all. I don't think any of them were thinking, 'I'm going to hate every minute of this but will reunite for the greater good'.

[Nicko1234]

yes it was a theme song from a movie of the same name but the group did in fact want it out and hoped for a hit single from it. bruce in 1990 ( 7/23/90) was doing interviews about their "new" single. on that day bruce was interviewed on a local fm station here (wrvc). was at the studio during the call and have that interview recorded. but they did hope for a hit from that song.

Sure but I presume they also did it because it was easy. Terry Melcher did all of the work so I wouldn't really class it as a concerted effort to have a hit.

[Steve Mayo]

yes it was a theme song from a movie of the same name but the group did in fact want it out and hoped for a hit single from it. bruce in 1990 ( 7/23/90) was doing interviews about their "new" single. on that day bruce was interviewed on a local fm station here (wrvc). was at the studio during the call and have that interview recorded. but they did hope for a hit from that song.

Sure but I presume they also did it because it was easy. Terry Melcher did all of the work so I wouldn't really class it as a concerted effort to have a hit.

same true of kokomo. they got lucky and had a hit.
 you ever hear the interview? know what bruce said? i just told you what he said.

[Cam Mott]

As you pointed out this interview isn't the total of Mike's feelings about the album or C50. I suppose we will all see it the way we want to see it.

[Nicko1234]

same true of kokomo. they got lucky and had a hit.
 you ever hear the interview? know what bruce said? i just told you what he said.

Huh? It's not the same thing is it.

For Problem Child Terry Melcher wrote and produced it and the group just turned up to do their vocals (as they did with Crocodile Rock I guess). I don't doubt that they would have liked it to be a hit but there wasn't exactly much effort involved.

For Kokomo Mike co-wrote a new chorus and put a lot more effort into it. The same goes for the rest of the new songs on Still Cruisin'.